IHavehadenoughofhaters wrote:

---

Sam I Am wrote:

---

Is Janet Almighty a poster at DD? I'm sure she is, but does anyone have a clue which poster she is? Bo Peep is a possibility...

---

This is one poster I believe may be her.   

.

NotADumbBlonde', '', this, 0);">NotADumbBlonde Posts: 73 Date: Fri Mar 16 6:25 PM, 2007 Views: 10

Quote | Reply RE: The Doherty Three!! IMHO, it reveals all we need to know about Gatelli, Fanucci, McGoff:  they are weak, feeble-minded simpletons desperately wanting to belong, eager to demonstrate their unwavering loyalty to Doherty, the ICN, et al, by withstanding personal embarrassment, humilation, and demoralization  -- they will jump through whatever hoops -- and will neglect and dismiss the electorate, as well as their own consciences, for a measly few tossed crumbs. Unfortunately, in this area, there are many, many more just waiting their turns. They're easy pickings.

 

---

If I were a betting woman ... I would put money on her being poster NotADumbBlonde ... I think we sort of figured that one out back when we were on Chumster didn't we?

I think you also may be right that Fay is may be the poster Franchise54 ... sounds like Fay rantings.



-- Edited by LusOnlyVoice at 17:36, 2007-03-17

Apparently, after Lyman was making still more of a fool out of himself, Janet could be seen leaning toward Minora, then over to Fanucci, who leans to Gatelli, then the motion to adjourn was made and immediately seconded by Courtright.

Now, conspiracy theorists, riddle me this.

If Janet is so much her own woman with sterling decision making skills and an uncanny ability to think for herself, why did she immedeately relay the message (assuming that's what the message was in the first place)?  If she had any sort of real backbone, that sort of message would have died on the vine.  No one asked for his opinion, but Janet was more than ready to act on it, if that was in fact what he said.

Secondly, being out of the message chain and apparently not aware of what Amil was allegedly "ordering", why was Courtright so quick to second the motion?  Why did Janet then vote "Aye" instead of "Nay"?

The answer is simple.  Adjourning that meeting was the right thing to do.  The only thing that could have been done. 

And to all you DD chowderheads:  You do NOT have the RIGHT to speak at Council.  Nowhere does it say that you do.  You have the PRIVELIGE of speaking at Council.  There are provisions for "citizen participation", as laid down by Council.  Nothing specifically says anything about speaking before a televised session of Council for a certain period of time.   Citizen participation could be limited to letters to council and closed chambers, and there's not a damn thing you or your ACLU rejects can do about it. 

Cameras are also not required.  That is at the pleasure of Council.  They can, and should (IMO) be taken away indefinately. Eliminating the circus you've brought, and removing the cameras is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, a violation of anything remotely constitutional.  And even if it were, by some very lax interpretation, your rights stop where mine begin.  I believe I have a right to an effective legeslative body.  When your grandstanding, attention-whoring, and general childishness interferes with this, you have infringed on MY rights, and the rights of the other 66,988 other citizens of Scranton.

Knock. The. Sht. Off.  I'm looking at you, Janet.

Thanks.  I've actually given it some thought.  I have a lot to learn first, though.  (Just as the idiots at DD.com have a lot to learn, too.  Including manners, respect, and decorum. I'm just smart enough to know I don't know it all, and I don't pretend to.)  Once Council returns to being about city business instead of about a vocal minority advancing a personal agenda via disruptive and abusive behavior, I'd consider it.  Until then, I'd just as soon subject myself to regular root canals.

My skeletons have closets full of skeletons.

 Perfect Place for it! 

Perfect place for both!

Makes me want to clap my hands, and sing OUT !

Art - you can be our version of Joe.
We'll just issue orders as we sit on our big fat internet

Art, go across the hall and tell Joe this
Art, go across the hall and tell Joe that
Art, go across the hall and give Joe 'whatfor'
Art, go across the hall and get banned again for us
Art, go across the hall and tell Joe that Timmy is stuck in a well
Art, go across the hall and tell Granma that she's a boob
Art, go across the hall and and and and


(This post was made in jest and is intended strictly for comic relief.
To view full disclaimer, visit my homepage.)

Janet was quoted in the Scranton Times as saying that Judy Gatelli should resign as Council President.  Dare I ask, for what?  I mean come on, it's not as if Ms Gatelli is posting anonymously on an internet message board or something like that...no, Judy Gatelli is guility of far, far worse...she dared to push back on the thugs who believe they have carte blanche to use council meetings to further personal agendas, vendettas, etc.

Janet Evans, you suck.

Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.

Janet claims to "barely know" the old man.  Maybe had him over for dinner once. 

The old man himself, however, has admitted to meeting with her "often".  Saint Gary has also claimed to have seen meetings between the two of them.  Former Clerk Saunders said they “do indeed know each other and have often worked together.”

In upcoming elections, who has the most to lose?  Joe apparently has no political aspirations--not to mention credibility or influence, so he has nothing to lose.  Neither does Saunders.  DiBileo's career fell apart when he courted the Pilchesky crowd, so he has nothing left to lose politically.  Janet, however, clearly has eyes on the Mayors office and higher.  Yet she's got this pesky connection to Pilchesky and his followers.  I'm not claiming anything between the two on a personal romantic level.  I don't need the mental image, quite frankly.  (I never watched the Faces of Death movies or look at rotten.com anymore for very similar reasons.)  She's the only one with anything to lose by this association.

Janet, therefore, is suddenly attempting to publicly distance herself from the old man and his kind, apparently because she's subpoenaed every election result in the history of time and has learned that 27 votes--the number that DD.com will deliver, probably half that when you take out the out of towners, felons, and sock accounts--has never won an election in this city. 

Janet is the one who is looking like the biggest fool in all of this, and she's selling out Pilchesky, denying him as much as she can get away with, because he is finally appearing to be a political liability to her.  Yet Gatelli is the one branded a Judas?

Janet Evans, on top of all the other reasons why you suck, you suck most of all for doing what you're doing to your boy Pilchesky.  I'm no fan of either of you, but friends simply do not do that to each other.  You have proven yourself to be the most shallow and dispicable politician this area has seen in ages, and I hope you're very proud of that.  YOU, you condescending airbag, are the big joke at city council.  Lyman on his worst day will never be the ignorant, aloof C U Next Thursday that you are.

-- Edited by Paul at 11:33, 2007-03-24

these are Scranton's union members???

Well, Paul it's Tuesday -- what is the suck factor?
It is still at yellow, or has it been elevated to orange?

LEVEL RED! EVERYBODY PANIC!!

Well, if THAT doesn't start a wave of panic throughout the land, I don't know what will ...
I didn't realize the elevation of the Yankees suck factor

I'd challenge her to include ALL of council in her little recall stunt. Lets see if she's willing to gamble her seat as well.